Comments for ofREH

Comment on of Parts. Part III by Patricia Read Matthews

Patricia Read Matthews — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:15:31 +0000

Interesting.

Comment on of Bureaucrats by ld

ld — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:52:07 +0000

Have you ever wondered if those certain individuals who seem to be ever blessed with good fortune are preventing others from their fair share? Perhaps there is some universal balance of yin-yang that must be maintained? What would our world be like if every one had a bowl of cherries on the table and a new Alfa in the drive? I would be willing to find out.

Comment on of Advance by Chad

Chad — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:03:28 +0000

I thought I had this set up to be notified of comments. Stupid technology! Always being stupid!

Anyway. You ask:

“Was their “basic” argument that complex”

I would say yes. While their position was sighted towards proximate goals, what was at stake was the dissolution of a way of life. This technological advancement benefitted the owners of the means of production primarily and the consumers of the products created by their extracted labor secondarily (assuming products were made better and cheaper). All basic Marx.

I guess you’d have to decide if there was something lost in losing the Luddites and their whole world. Nearly all of the hand made communion wafers created by nuns have been replaced by a mass produced version. Does this matter? Most pork produced in the United States comes from vast waste producing factories. Will we miss the last of the real farmers when they are gone?

You comment:

“My fear is that to forgo advances for the benefit of the obsolete, can only serve to stymy potential technological growth.”

The corporate narrative is that all technological advancements are good and those that make them possible should be celebrated.

Oppenheimer had something to say about that.

If we heed the 20th centruy’s incarnation of Shiva, then we know that unrestricted technology, in hand with a grow or die Capitalist system. should at the very least be questioned. Especially when thousands, maybe millions suffer for the benefit of the few.

Comment on of Advance by ofreh

ofreh — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:07:02 +0000

Very charitable of you.
With all yours, I’ve faith you’ve no need to consult a dictionary for “sanctimonious”?

Comment on of Advance by K8

K8 — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:51:21 +0000

“As a student of history, I am increasingly less inclined to embrace the concept of trickle down economics.”

Well, you do have SOME sense, then.

Comment on of Angels by K8

K8 — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:39:35 +0000

I can’t believe in Angels as the idea of an intercessionist or intervening God (or Angel or Saint or what have you) doesn’t work with my concept of the world and morality.

I like the idea, it just can’t work for me logically. Now you may say logic and faith don’t need to work together, but they sorta do.

I was raised with many people around me talking about the power of prayer. My parents prayed a lot. The problem comes when people start saying that so-and-so prayed a lot so she survived cancer. Does that mean that person B didn’t pray enough? Something bad happened to someone – why? Does God choose favourites?Take that to the nth degree and hopefully you get my reservation.

I don’t have all the ins and outs resolved – I may well have some glaring inconsistencies in my faith,

In any case, please don’t take this as a criticism of your faith. Just my own comment.

Comment on of Angels by ld

ld — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:27:08 +0000

A wonderful entry. As one whose life you have touched, I owe my own thanks to those Guardians of yours.

Comment on of Advance by ofreh

ofreh — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:07:35 +0000

Was their “basic” argument that complex, Chad? My reading, suggests not. That you may be projecting somewhat. What I understand is that they were wanting to halt the march of progress for their own, individual and limited collective, preservation.
I’m not sure if you read my blog entirely (it’s kinda dry) but while I hold their methods of address terroristic, I believe their protests are becoming ever more relevant in our age. Though, entirely more complex and with much wider and more immediate consequences. My fear is that to forgo advances for the benefit of the obsolete, can only serve to stymy potential technological growth. Yet…as you point out, to abolish an industry without providing berthing for it’s flotsam jetsom, can also prove detrimental and possibly even apocalyptic.
The burgeoning socialist in me wonders if it might not be prudent, and so a requisite, to attach the burden of re-education and repositioning to any boon of wealth that was achieved at the dismantling of an industry, by the hands of efficiency.
I hope you will reply, I am very interested in your consideration.

Comment on of Advance by Chad

Chad — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:31:24 +0000

The Luddites were correct. Their basic argument, that unrestircted technological growth for the sake of efficiency for the benefit of Capitalism alone will dehumanize society, create a surplus of labor and a deep inequality in wealth (which always brings with it chaos) holds.

Comment on of Parts. Part III by K8

K8 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:53:55 +0000

Your mom always got preggers at around the same time huh?